Shiv Mohan Singh vs Vinod Kumar Gupta, Asstt. Commissioner, Commercial Tax and Another

Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

Applicant filed a Trade Tax Revision No. 774 of 2008; Shiv Mohan Singh v. Commissioner of Trade Tax before this Court. This Court vide its judgment and order dated 08.07.2008 dismissed the revision and confirmed the order passed by the authorities below which remands the matter for a fresh adjudication. The operative portion of the order is being reproduced below:

The date on which the copy of the order of the First Appellate Authority was received by the Assessing Authority, has to be ascertained first. Unless and until the said point is fixed, it can not be said that period of limitation has started running. It has also come on record that the plea of limitation after remand was not agitated before the Assessing Authority. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the two orders of the authorities below remanding the mater for fresh consideration of the plea raised by the applicant regarding limitation. There is no merit in the revision. The revision is dismissed summarily.

Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits before this Court that the Assessing Authority in view of the direction issued by this Court was obliged to decide the issue of limitation regarding receipt of the order before him first, and without deciding the said question, he cannot decide other issues because that was the main issue to be decided, as directed by this Court. The applicant has also filed an appeal. Appeal too has been dismissed confirming the finding of the Assessing Authority. Once this Court has directed that the date on which the copy of the order of the First Appellate Authority was received by the Assessing Authority, has to be ascertained first, the Assessing Authority had no option except to decide the question of limitation regarding receipt of the order first. Therefore, he is in contempt of the order passed by this Court dated 08.07.2008.

I have considered the issue and submissions raised by the applicant. I am of the opinion that this Court while dismissing the revision has observed that the order of remand is correct, but has further observed that issue of limitation regarding receipt of the order has to be ascertained first. A finding to that effect has been recorded and if incorrect finding or finding has not been recorded on that issue it is always open to the applicant to challenge the said order before the Appellate Authority or before the revisional court as the case may be. In my opinion, it cannot said to be in defiance of the order passed by a judicial authority or the administrative authority if he has adjudicated the points properly as it would have been.

Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in this contempt application. It is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.